Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED insofar as it seeks to declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in conducting an inquiry on complaints against petitioner, and ordering their investigation pursuant to respondents’ mandate under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Law. But the petition is hereby GRANTED insofar as it seeks to declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion concerning the period of preventive suspension imposed on petitioner, which is the ma…
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED insofar as it seeks to declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in conducting an inquiry on complaints against petitioner, and ordering their investigation pursuant to respondents mandate under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Law. But the petition is hereby GRANTED insofar as it seeks to declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion concerning the period of preventive suspension imposed on petitioner, which is the maximum of six months, it appearing that 24 days the number of days from the date petitioner was suspended on June 25, 1999, to the date of our status quo order on July 19, 1999 were sufficient for the purpose. Accordingly, petitioners preventive suspension, embodied in the order of respondent Deputy Ombudsman, dated June 25, 1999, should now be, as it is hereby, LIFTED immediately. SO ORDERED.
G.R. NO. 167828 - THE OMBUDSMAN, FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. NESTOR S. VALEROSO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. NO. 167828 -
CaseGOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., EMERLINDA S. TALENTO AND RODOLFO H. DE MESA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS 12
G.R. No. 185132 -
CaseG.R. NO. 155620 - PRUDENCIO QUIMBO, VS. ACTING OMBUDSMAN MARGARITO GERVACIO AND DIRECTRESS MARY SUSAN S. GUILLERMO OF THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. NO. 155620 -